3 ms·

What's completely unreasonable though is that we have to pay Spotify execs with this money for something that should be a public service based on free software

What's completely unreasonable though is that we have to pay Spotify execs with this money for something that should be a public service based on free software and p2p infrastructure. A little less than two decades ago before HADOPI was adopted in France, a considerable share of the population/parties were defending a "global license" that would have legalized filesharing and instituted a tax on Internet access to finance arts. Basically, spotify-netflix-as-a-public-service. I'm not saying it's the best model ever, hell i'm for abolishing money entirely. I'm just pointing out alternatives were imagined and are entirely possible. Compared to a private corporation profiting from the situation and dictating what music will/won't be available tomorrow (i used spotify before i lost some songs i loved due to their contracts expiring or whatever), such a system would be much better.

throwaway316943 5y ago
> Compared to a private corporation profiting from the situation and dictating what music will/won't be available tomorrow In a publicly funded version of this you just have the government deciding what will and won’t be available. Look at the existing cultural departments of national governments, they’re full of arbitrary decisions made by bureaucrats. At least with the current model, if someone comes up with a better way to get paid while giving artists and consumers a better deal they’ve got a chance of displacing the existing model, when you legislate something into existence it’s nearly impossible to renovate it.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > you just have the government deciding what will and won’t be available That's not how Bittorrent works, fortunately, but i see your point. I'm not a fan of government either. I stand for the abolition of government and copyright at the same time (among other things). I'm merely pointing out that alternative proposals do exist (most people are not aware) and it's really disgusting that a private company is making business out of people trying to access culture... and gets to decide what albums to remove at what time. > if someone comes up with a better way to get paid while giving artists and consumers a better deal they’ve got a chance of displacing the existing model That's not how monopoly works. In a capitalist economy, you basically need a billion euros (or at least 1% of that) on the table before you can try and maybe change something. Otherwise, other companies will not even start talks for a contract with you. See copyright mafia, telecoms/ISP mafia, large retailers mafia, social netowrks / advertisement mafia, etc... Hell, even for running a simple mail server it's so hard to reach gmail.com or outlook.com users ;)
poisonborz 5y ago
That would be really hard to manifest realistically. This would need - on one end some government agency that hands out copyright fees based on some very complex calculations on listening stats, scraped from all the internet? Lots of abuse possibility and even less influence for small creators - on the other, quality apps and services that would compete with Spotify... with almost no financial gain? Look at the open source world, licenses were never an issue for p2p services to advance, and what streaming options do we have? Subsonic, Plex, Funkwhale don't even come close to Spotify functionality, and we didn't even mentioned where the content comes from. I'm all for open content protocols and services, it's just historically reasonable that corporate solutions appear first. Once these are established, with proper shifts in copyright system, open solutions could build on their learnings.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > on one end some government agency that hands out copyright fees based on some very complex calculations on listening stats, scraped from all the internet? Yes that's why i'm mostly opposed to a global license. It's broken by design because it's a capitalist proposal. Artists need to live well, but so do other folks (free software devs, cooks, etc..) so this is a problem to be solved as a whole and not to be approached for each individual branch. > Funkwhale don't even come close to Spotify functionality Funkwhale looks pretty cool. Need to try that out! > it's just historically reasonable that corporate solutions appear first I don't believe that was the case so much. I mean spotify and youtube were born as pseudo-pirate platforms where nobody cared at all about copyright until maybe 5y ago? 10y ago? They couldn't have grown at all if they played by the book (because no editor would have licensed their works to a tiny platform like theirs). And i don't know about your local context but i know for sure here in France Bittorrent was REALLY popular, everybody was using it and that's why they passed laws like the HADOPI. They knew they couldn't control the Bittorrent network so they started to threaten people with fines so they would move to streaming platforms, to a passive consumption model where it's easier to sell them subscriptions. It's only because law enforcement went after non-profit p2p initiatives (and even for-profit ones like Napster) that platforms like Spotify could emerge at all. I'm not sure what the morale of the story is. I'm just sure we're doing everything wrong as a society. The best artists are starving while the worst are raking millions of €€€ in. We keep producing useless hardware/software that'll be obsolete/broken by next year, and we keep on destroying our own planet so that the next generation will have to fight for drinkable water. All in all, copyright is not my biggest concern. It's just a symptom of our fucked up capitalist society.
Chris2048 5y ago
> we have to pay Spotify execs with this money for something that should be a public service based on free software and p2p infrastructure. The reality is, the software and infrastructure isn't what we pay Spotify for. It's the licensing, and the legal work. Maybe we shouldn't have to. Maybe no one should have to. Maybe the whole copywrite system needs reworking - if if anyone had the means to do that, I would pay more than a Spotify sub (as would the many corps who don't want reform). But until such a solution is available, and the US/world operates under the corrupt system that it does, there is only large corps capable of filling legal coffers to do so. Corrupt? yes, but it starts from the government down.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > Corrupt? yes, but it starts from the government down. Sure, but that's precisely the problem. So-called intellectual property is a scam, like all forms of so-called private property. How come there's empty houses and people sleeping on the streets? Noone should have to pay ANYTHING to live. Let's abolish money and government and suddenly things will be a lot easier for everyone :)
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Assuming you're serious; Who should pay for someone to live? Houses (and utilities) don't build themselves. Judicial systems don't grow on trees. Money is merely a token representing value, intended to ensure fair compensation: value for value. To flip this around: why should ANYONE pay for music?
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      > Who should pay for someone to live? Why should anyone pay for anything? The simple fact that you have to pay to live is a pretty modern invention. > Houses (and utilities) don't build themselves. True. It's a good thing then that some people are interested in doing that. And if there's a task that noone wants to do (washing dishes?) we can share the burden in a fair way: i'd be happy to collect trashes for my community once a year or once a month, if others do the same. Also, while houses don't build themselves, you'll note that money doesn't build them either. It's intended as a motivational force for people to work. However people can "work" (if we can call it that) out of conviction/ideals as well. We could collectively abolish money from one day to the next and housing would still be there, fields would still grow... Life would go on, except the capitalist bloodsuckers wouldn't know how to extract value from their wage slaves anymore. (Also, most people would probably quit their job because it doesn't make sense or actively hurts others/nature. See David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs on this phenomenon) > why should ANYONE pay for music? Well as long as you pay for housing and food you probably should pay for music, too. But money doesn't make any sense to "ensure fair compensation". It does make sense to extract value from the poor to the rich in a very abstract way... it's basically "grow food for your king all year long and they'll come with soldiers and take 90% of your production" but with layers of subtlety added over the centuries.

throwaway316943 5y ago

> Compared to a private corporation profiting from the situation and dictating what music will/won't be available tomorrow In a publicly funded version of this you just have the government deciding what will and won’t be available. Look at the existing cultural departments of national governments, they’re full of arbitrary decisions made by bureaucrats. At least with the current model, if someone comes up with a better way to get paid while giving artists and consumers a better deal they’ve got a chance of displacing the existing model, when you legislate something into existence it’s nearly impossible to renovate it.

southerntofu 5y ago
> you just have the government deciding what will and won’t be available That's not how Bittorrent works, fortunately, but i see your point. I'm not a fan of government either. I stand for the abolition of government and copyright at the same time (among other things). I'm merely pointing out that alternative proposals do exist (most people are not aware) and it's really disgusting that a private company is making business out of people trying to access culture... and gets to decide what albums to remove at what time. > if someone comes up with a better way to get paid while giving artists and consumers a better deal they’ve got a chance of displacing the existing model That's not how monopoly works. In a capitalist economy, you basically need a billion euros (or at least 1% of that) on the table before you can try and maybe change something. Otherwise, other companies will not even start talks for a contract with you. See copyright mafia, telecoms/ISP mafia, large retailers mafia, social netowrks / advertisement mafia, etc... Hell, even for running a simple mail server it's so hard to reach gmail.com or outlook.com users ;)

poisonborz 5y ago

That would be really hard to manifest realistically. This would need - on one end some government agency that hands out copyright fees based on some very complex calculations on listening stats, scraped from all the internet? Lots of abuse possibility and even less influence for small creators - on the other, quality apps and services that would compete with Spotify... with almost no financial gain? Look at the open source world, licenses were never an issue for p2p services to advance, and what streaming options do we have? Subsonic, Plex, Funkwhale don't even come close to Spotify functionality, and we didn't even mentioned where the content comes from. I'm all for open content protocols and services, it's just historically reasonable that corporate solutions appear first. Once these are established, with proper shifts in copyright system, open solutions could build on their learnings.

southerntofu 5y ago
> on one end some government agency that hands out copyright fees based on some very complex calculations on listening stats, scraped from all the internet? Yes that's why i'm mostly opposed to a global license. It's broken by design because it's a capitalist proposal. Artists need to live well, but so do other folks (free software devs, cooks, etc..) so this is a problem to be solved as a whole and not to be approached for each individual branch. > Funkwhale don't even come close to Spotify functionality Funkwhale looks pretty cool. Need to try that out! > it's just historically reasonable that corporate solutions appear first I don't believe that was the case so much. I mean spotify and youtube were born as pseudo-pirate platforms where nobody cared at all about copyright until maybe 5y ago? 10y ago? They couldn't have grown at all if they played by the book (because no editor would have licensed their works to a tiny platform like theirs). And i don't know about your local context but i know for sure here in France Bittorrent was REALLY popular, everybody was using it and that's why they passed laws like the HADOPI. They knew they couldn't control the Bittorrent network so they started to threaten people with fines so they would move to streaming platforms, to a passive consumption model where it's easier to sell them subscriptions. It's only because law enforcement went after non-profit p2p initiatives (and even for-profit ones like Napster) that platforms like Spotify could emerge at all. I'm not sure what the morale of the story is. I'm just sure we're doing everything wrong as a society. The best artists are starving while the worst are raking millions of €€€ in. We keep producing useless hardware/software that'll be obsolete/broken by next year, and we keep on destroying our own planet so that the next generation will have to fight for drinkable water. All in all, copyright is not my biggest concern. It's just a symptom of our fucked up capitalist society.

Chris2048 5y ago

> we have to pay Spotify execs with this money for something that should be a public service based on free software and p2p infrastructure. The reality is, the software and infrastructure isn't what we pay Spotify for. It's the licensing, and the legal work. Maybe we shouldn't have to. Maybe no one should have to. Maybe the whole copywrite system needs reworking - if if anyone had the means to do that, I would pay more than a Spotify sub (as would the many corps who don't want reform). But until such a solution is available, and the US/world operates under the corrupt system that it does, there is only large corps capable of filling legal coffers to do so. Corrupt? yes, but it starts from the government down.

southerntofu 5y ago
> Corrupt? yes, but it starts from the government down. Sure, but that's precisely the problem. So-called intellectual property is a scam, like all forms of so-called private property. How come there's empty houses and people sleeping on the streets? Noone should have to pay ANYTHING to live. Let's abolish money and government and suddenly things will be a lot easier for everyone :)
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Assuming you're serious; Who should pay for someone to live? Houses (and utilities) don't build themselves. Judicial systems don't grow on trees. Money is merely a token representing value, intended to ensure fair compensation: value for value. To flip this around: why should ANYONE pay for music?
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    > Who should pay for someone to live? Why should anyone pay for anything? The simple fact that you have to pay to live is a pretty modern invention. > Houses (and utilities) don't build themselves. True. It's a good thing then that some people are interested in doing that. And if there's a task that noone wants to do (washing dishes?) we can share the burden in a fair way: i'd be happy to collect trashes for my community once a year or once a month, if others do the same. Also, while houses don't build themselves, you'll note that money doesn't build them either. It's intended as a motivational force for people to work. However people can "work" (if we can call it that) out of conviction/ideals as well. We could collectively abolish money from one day to the next and housing would still be there, fields would still grow... Life would go on, except the capitalist bloodsuckers wouldn't know how to extract value from their wage slaves anymore. (Also, most people would probably quit their job because it doesn't make sense or actively hurts others/nature. See David Graeber's Bullshit Jobs on this phenomenon) > why should ANYONE pay for music? Well as long as you pay for housing and food you probably should pay for music, too. But money doesn't make any sense to "ensure fair compensation". It does make sense to extract value from the poor to the rich in a very abstract way... it's basically "grow food for your king all year long and they'll come with soldiers and take 90% of your production" but with layers of subtlety added over the centuries.